Good point, Saul. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: saul ostrow <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, July 25, 2012 2:50:40 PM Subject: Re: is list dead? I assume you mean our impression of it On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]>wrote: > The essences of any thing is impossible to accomplish so we have to settle > for our expression of it, for ever. > ab > > ________________________________ > From: saul ostrow <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 10:09 AM > Subject: Re: is list dead? > > Let us > not slip to easily into dualities or dialectics - human and inhuman > are not > necessarily antithetical - inhuman may be thought of as the sign > of > incompleteness - those aspects as yet unincorporated, or re-formed and > therefore outside, or beside our present conception of our self > > On Wed, Jul > 25, 2012 at 11:49 AM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > > > I agree > with Saul's framing of the issue and what he then says about it. > > I'm > > not > sure is the part of human-ness that is incomplete is therefore inhuman > > if we > > presume it to be the contrary of human. One may have a capability to do > > > what > > has never been done. Is that capability therefore contrary to what has > > been doe > > as proved ability? > > wc > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: > saul ostrow <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: > Wed, July 25, 2012 9:26:51 AM > > Subject: Re: is list dead? > > > > will get to > both of these as soon as possible in that they both raise > > important points - > one thing I want to clarify is my use of incompleteness > > has less to do with > the ability of a medium to fulfill a task than it does > > with the idea that > the task is never in itself complete (perhaps even in > > its formulation) and > therefore whatever the goal was, it is left > > unfinished - and that we fool > ourselves when we tell ourselves we have > > finished something, as opposed to > having accomplished it as best we can > > given our ability, means and > understanding (which is in all ways > > incomplete)- so perhaps in the context > of being human we should consider > > what part of ourselves remains inhuman, or > what value lies in what we > > believe being human means when we model our > "self" (this use of language > > to fool ourselves by asking the wrong question > is an intrinsic aspect of > > the Whorfe-Sapir Hypothesis concerning language > and perception) > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:23 AM, caldwell-brobeck < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Certainly most image making is > conditioned by language; but there are > > many > > > other contributing factors, > particularly other images, as well as our > > > intrinsic, inherited visual > processing system. The question really is to > > > what degree different factors > contribute, which will vary greatly from > > > individual to individual. > > > > > > > As for the ineffable - I'm all in that camp. That there might be always > > > > something pertinent to be said does not mean that words cover the > > territory > > > of what can be communicated. > > > Cheers; > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul > 24, 2012 at 6:38 PM, William Conger <[email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > This exchange below between Saul and Cheerskep reminds me of Derrida's > > > > term > > > > 'differance' He claims that any statement is incomplete and that > > > nothing > > > > can be > > > > fully explicted. There is always a remainder, > something left over, to > > be > > > > noticed by someone...ad infinitum. > > > > > > > > > i don't think I said that drawing is superior to language, or if I > > did, > I > > > > erred. > > > > I do think drawing is a fundamental form of > communication. It might > > be > > > a > > > > product of language and not its > antecedent. I don't know and I don't > > > think > > > > anyone knows for sure. > Did the early man grunt and point at the same > > > > time to > > > > tell his pal > that the bison is just ahead? Was that pointing a mode of > > > > drawing? > > > > > Was his grunting a performative act of 'drawing sound' or was it > > > > language > > > > and > > > > was language therefore born with 'drawing'. In the > practical terms of > > > our > > > > daily > > > > lives, I think that the drawn or > performed images we make are likely > > > > conditioned > > > > by language. I > think historical man is so deeply immersed in language > > > that > > > > all > > > > > of his concepts are shaped and limited by language. Whatever shape we > > > > make > > > > as a > > > > 'drawing' (again, I use the term in its broadest > performative sense ) > > > > already > > > > has a name and many names. We 'draw' > what we say; we say what we draw. > > > > This > > > > leads me to side with those > who do not accept the ineffable in > > aesthetic > > > > experience. I think we > are forced to explicate experience and what we > > > say > > > > is > > > > merely > tacit is that which cannot be firmly explicated but is > > 'explained > > > > > away' > > > > or 'talked around' or said and re-said until every word known has > been > > > > used and > > > > the matter is still incomplete. There is always > something pertinent to > > be > > > > said, > > > > not enough, but no experience is > truly 'speechless'. > > > > wc > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > S a u l O s t r o w > > > *Critical Voices* > > 21STREETPROJECTS > > 162 West 21 Street > > NYC, NY > 10011 > > > > > > > -- > S a u l O s t r o w > *Critical Voices* > 21STREETPROJECTS > 162 > West 21 Street > NYC, NY 10011 > > -- S a u l O s t r o w *Critical Voices* 21STREETPROJECTS 162 West 21 Street NYC, NY 10011
